Re: SR consistency is crap.

From: J.E. (troubled6man_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: 22 Nov 2004 16:54:41 -0800

eleatis@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.0411200620.45096f47@posting.google.com>...
> "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<307sfvF2tau18U2@uni-berlin.de>...
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > > Mike wrote:
> > > >
>
> > >> A theory about math must be consistent but cannot be complete. Thus it
> > >> always incorporates a paradox: Goedel

I'm really curious as to what you think the word "paradox" means. The
word complete can mean many things, like deductively complete, or
semantically complete. "A theory about math" can mean many things
too. Are you talking about a list oFOL formulas? There is no proof
that set theory is consistent, btw. That's why Goedel's result is
that oFOL based set theory is deductively incomplete (by a fixed
method of proof) if it is consistent.

> > > Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
> > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html
> >
> > Goedel's incompleteness results apply to a particular class of formal
> > systems which are powerful enough to formulate arithmetic. Goedels
> > results do not apply to physics theories, which in general are not
> > formal, but applications of existing theories in geometry and function
> > theory.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
> >
> > >
>
> How stupid are you going to get? Now you claim Einstein's theories are
> physical theories? What is a physical theory? Those are just
> mathematical theories. They are incomplete but consistent.

A physical theory is a generator of a list of predictions. If you use
a consistent source to generator your list then you don't have to
worry about predicting contradictory things. If you use an incomplete
generator, then there might be experiemnts where your theory makes no
prediction.

> Every
> consistent formal system contains antinomies or paradox(es). Every
> complete formal system does not contain antinomies but it is
> incosistent.

Now I wonder what your definition of "antinomies" are.

> SR incompletness is well known. It contains the twin paradox.

SR contains now contradictions. The experiment where two twins leave
and see the same red-shift factor followed by the same blue shift
factor has the case where one twin ages more than the other. This is
not a contradiction because the one who ages less sees the red shift
for a smaller propotion of the trip than the one who ages more. There
is simply NO contradiction in that experiment OR in it's UNambigious
prediction. Anyone who told you otherwise was either incompetant or a
liar. I'd have to know them to know which they were.

> GR's
> incompletness arises from locality. It leads to antinomies and I have
> shown that in these ng's. the arfument is simple and straight forward.

An incomplete generator just fails to make predictions. Based on your
previous useage about "twin paradox" I suspect that you think that GR
makes contradictory predictions. This is not the case either, if so
set theory would be inconsistent, because set theory is the essential
part of the generator of GR.

> Pure formal systems in the spirit of logical positivism of early 20th
> century. Both theories are failures. Their survival is solely due to a
> huge publicity effort and media involvement. Plenty of empirical
> evidence says they are trash.

Interesting theory. How come things hold up in the lab then? Does
the media mess with my equipment when I'm not there? Your thoughts
are very interesting Mike, I'd love to see you back up what you say.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... They are incomplete but consistent. ... A physical theory is a generator of a list of predictions. ... worry about predicting contradictory things. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... They are incomplete but consistent. ... A physical theory is a generator of a list of predictions. ... worry about predicting contradictory things. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... enough computer power you make accurate predictions is naive to the ... That part of your statement is rubbish: incomplete models can yield conclusions that match reality extremely well and very reliably, as long as no *important* elements are missing. ... climatology modelling as a prediction tool for long term patterns is still at a stage where it has zero predictive credibility. ... Whether you happen to believe the predictions or not, the majority of those people in a position to voice a competent opinion believe that they're eminently credible. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... enough computer power you make accurate predictions is naive to the ... That part of your statement is rubbish: incomplete models can yield conclusions that match reality extremely well and very reliably, as long as no *important* elements are missing. ... climatology modelling as a prediction tool for long term patterns is still at a stage where it has zero predictive credibility. ... Whether you happen to believe the predictions or not, the majority of those people in a position to voice a competent opinion believe that they're eminently credible. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... occur in a generator. ... Unlike climatologists, who are batting 0 for 14, or worse. ... But by all means feel free to come up with the kind of comprehensive review of climatological predictions that could justify that rather sweeping generalization: demonstrating that kind of discipline would be a unique event for your side of the discussion. ... Hey, you're welcome to come up with a credible compilation of reference data to support your babble as well, you know - don't feel you have to leave it up to Dweeb. ...
    (comp.os.vms)